HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/06/12M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\06-12-00\Agenda -- Council.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Council Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2000
B. Special Council Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2000
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
6. REPORTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. License Approval
C. Set Public Hearing for June 26, 2000, 7:05pm to consider business license renewals for
establishments that sell intoxicating liquor—Givonna Reed
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please
limit your comments to three minutes.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance 660: Franchise Fee Ordinance Amending
Ordinance 643 - City Attorney
B. Resolution 5451 establishing a Park Dedication Fund and transferring park dedication
funds from the general fund and the recreation fund to said fund - Bruce Kessel
C. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ending December 31,
1999 (Steve Wischmann from Kern DeWenter & Viere, and Bruce Kessel)
D. Consider authorizing the mayor and interim clerk-administrator to sign a three year
extension for auditing services with Kern DeWenter & Viere for the years ending
December 31, 2000, 2001 and 2002 - Bruce Kessel
E. Consideration of Sergeant’s and Patrol Contracts - Michael Ulrich
F. Budget Transfers – Michael Ulrich
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\06-12-00\Agenda -- Council.doc
City Council Meeting
June 12, 2000
Page –2-
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2000
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 26, 2000
12. ADJOURNMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 22, 2000
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:03 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Accept the May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda as
Amended.
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of the Consideration of Resolution 5445, Appointing
Barbara Thomas to the vacated seat on the Planning Commission.
Council Member Quick accepted this friendly amendment.
Interim Administrator Ulrich requested Item 10-G, the Consideration of Approval of First Tee
Letter of Intent, be removed from the Agenda.
The Motioner and Seconder agreed.
Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, May 8, 2000, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin stated several of the Council Members have not had an opportunity to review
the City Council Minutes of May 8, 2000, therefore, he would request the consent of the Council
to hold over the approval of the minutes to the next meeting.
The Council agreed.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 2
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin stated he had written a letter of commendation for the City’s own Attorney, Bob
Long, and read the letter as follows:
“As Mayor of Mounds View, I would like to personally commend you for your efforts above and
beyond the call of duty in regard to the City’s airport litigation and legislation. Having been
alongside you at the Capitol almost two dozen times over the past couple of years has convinced
me firsthand that you and your associates have done a great service for our City with those issues.
I have been, and continue to be, impressed with your commitment to the City of Mounds View
and all of its diverse issues.
Again, you have my sincere thanks and appreciation for a job well done. I look forward to
working with you and your associates in the future.”
Mayor Coughlin stated he had signed the letter of commendation, and copies were forwarded to
John M. LeFebvre, Jr., President of the Board of Directors of Kennedy and Graven. He indicated
copies would also be provided to the members of the City Council and the City Administrator, to
be put on permanent file. He explained that this was also done in light of the fact that after what
seemed to have been time out of reach, the airport fight was now over, and the Governor signed
the legislation the previous week. He stated he desired to officially thank City Attorney Long
and make note to his Board of Directors that he had done a great job, along with John Choi, Jim
Strummond, and others.
City Attorney Long thanked Mayor Coughlin for his statements.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Quick had no report.
Council Member Marty reported the City was continuing to experience a graffiti problem, and a
Special Investigator has been assigned to this matter. He requested any citizens who witness
such vandalism occurring to please report it to the Police.
Council Member Thomason reported she attended the previous Planning Commission meeting,
and four of the five items discussed were listed on the current Council Agenda for public
hearings.
Mayor Coughlin reported the Airport Bill passed. He indicated he had spent countless hours on
the telephone with City Attorney Long in this regard, and he was glad this battle was over. He
explained that thanks not only goes to Bob Long and all of his efforts behind the scenes, but also
to the City’s representatives, Senator Steve Novak, and Representative Barbara Haake, who have
done a fantastic job for the benefit of the City. He commented that words could not suffice in
describing the efforts of those two individuals.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Coughlin indicated that at the Council Work Session, the Council was asked if they would
be agreeable to holding a reception for Senator Novak and Representative Haake, along with City
Attorney Long and his associates, in order to provide them with public access so that the citizens
of the community, as well as the Council, could thank them for their sacrifice and their service to
the City. He stated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed had indicated Wednesday, June 9th,
from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., would appear to work for everyone’s schedule. He stated the reception
would be held in Council Chambers so that the presentation, or at minimum, a portion of the
dialogue might be televised for citizens who were unable to attend. He inquired if it would be
the consent of the Council to hold the reception at this time.
The Council concurred.
Mayor Coughlin reported he attended a Mounds View business luncheon the previous Monday,
which was somewhat of a round table discussion between the members of the New Brighton-
Mounds View Chamber of Commerce and himself. He extended a special thanks to Carol Frey,
President of the Chamber, for providing the food and coordinating this event. He added that it
was hoped they could continue to maintain their contact with the business community on an
ongoing basis.
Mayor Coughlin reported the Golf Course Committee met the previous week, however, this
meeting was not televised at that time, as it consisted of a field trip to examine some of the
swamps and lowlands in the area that are being considered for potential development by the Rice
Creek Watershed District. He explained that this meeting was videotaped and documented, and
was currently being edited for future broadcast.
City Attorney Long thanked Mayor Coughlin for his kind words with regard to the airport
legislation and litigation. He commented he considered this to be a part of his job duty, however,
there were a few close calls in the process, and at approximately 5 minutes to 7:00 a.m., he was
somewhat concerned that the House might adjourn and the Airport Bill would not be passed.
City Attorney Long stated he believes the congratulations really go not only to the two legislators
who did a phenomenal job, but also to the entire community. He indicated their success was not
due to any one individual, but rather, the strongest message to the Legislature was that this was a
very important issue to the community. He advised that these efforts went back over several
years, through three different Mayors, three City Councils, and from one Legislator to the next,
even of opposite parties, which clarifies the importance of this issue.
City Attorney Long indicated that the presence of an elected official, in this case, Mayor
Coughlin, had made a significant difference, as the Legislators listened to him and Council
Member Thomason, who was present outside the Chambers to discuss this issue as well. He
pointed out that in the end, the process, which appears to be so cumbersome and unpredictable at
times, actually worked, and the Legislature listened to the people as represented by their Mayor
and Council Member.
City Attorney Long stated he would like the citizens of Mounds View to be aware of the number
of hours Mayor Coughlin had spent at the Capitol, and how this really paid off. He stated he had
watched the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader E-mail the Mayor of Mounds View at
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 4
his jobsite to request his presence, and as a result, he was able to meet with these individuals
through the Mayor, which he could not have otherwise done. He advised that this had a
significant effect on this issue.
City Attorney Long added that thanks should be given to the Governor as well, for signing the
bill.
Mayor Coughlin requested the record reflect that the Council was in agreement in thanking the
Governor for signing the bill. He added that the Governor and his staff were certainly welcome
to attend the reception, if they so desired.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Licenses for Approval.
C. Motion to Not Waive Monetary Limits on Municipal Tort Liability
Established by State Statues.
D. Resolution of Appreciation for Planning Commissioner Ordeen Braathen.
E. Approval of Second Amendment to the Ramsey County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority Joint Cooperation Agreement.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, D,
and E, as presented.
Council Member Marty stated in consideration of Item 7D, he would suggest all City
commissioners be recognized by Resolution of Appreciation as they step down or their terms
expire.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if this was the consensus of the Council.
The Council agreed.
Mayor Coughlin requested staff note that as a matter of course, all board and commission
members would be presented with a Resolution of Appreciation upon their departure.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin stated there was no unfinished business before the Council, other than to note
that the Highway 10 Steering Committee would meet on Tuesday, at 7:00 p.m., in Council
Chambers. He indicated this meeting would be televised and taped for future rebroadcast. He
advised that the Steering Committee would facilitate public hearings at some point in the
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 5
process, and citizens would have the opportunity to provide their input with regard to this issue
in the very near future.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated the City has hired an individual to examine
expanding the golf course. He indicated the City was having difficulty paying for the golf course
as it was, and he did not believe they should invest more money into it because there were bonds
that must be paid off, and the City had a $200,000 float. He explained that no one was prepared
to guarantee that 18 holes would make any money, and although this had been stated with regard
to the 9 holes at the golf course, it did not occur. He stated he was very upset about this.
Mr. Jahnke stated he had a problem with regard to amending the Charter. He indicated he was
not certain why the City would desire to change the Charter. He explained that he had watched
the meeting during which some of the Council Members had indicated why they believed it was a
good idea, however, he did not personally believe it was a good idea. He advised that the City
has a Charter Commission to watch over government, and he had already made the Council
aware of what happened in the city of Cambridge. He indicated he has spoken with many
residents in this regard, and there might be some who are in favor of this, however, he has found
many who are opposed. He stated he would personally fight this proposal, as well as the
proposal to expand the golf course.
Ron Nelson, 2174 Oakwood Drive requested the Council consider installing a jump in the park
for the children who are currently utilizing the speed bumps on the side of the boulevard as a
jump for their bicycles, roller blades and skateboards. He stated he takes walks in this area for
his health, and has witnessed several incidents where these children have nearly been hit by the
speeding vehicles that travel on this roadway. He stated he understood that the road would be
widened, and inquired if the Council would consider this. He pointed out that this could assist in
preventing damage to private property as well.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would pass this recommendation on to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and would personally write a note to the Chair of that Commission in this regard.
He indicated Mr. Nelson could contact staff liaison, Terri Blattenbauer, at the Community
Center, to learn how the matter is progressing.
Brad Jahnke, 8408 Eastwood Drive stated he attended a school picnic, at which the third grade
class was given a tour of the Public Works Department. He indicated he had gone into the
facility, and noticed that the City had purchased a brand new Caterpillar backhoe. He stated he
had desired to ask a few questions regarding the backhoe, however, it did not appear to be the
appropriate time, and he was informed that the City had been down this road before, and when
the City purchases equipment of this nature, they purchase the best so that it will last longer. He
stated he did not receive all of the information he desired at that time.
Mr. Jahnke stated in his understanding, the City traded in a backhoe for the new backhoe. He
inquired regarding the trade in amount on the old backhoe, and why the “Cadillac” of backhoes
was purchased for a City that does have a great need for it. He inquired if the Council voted on
this matter prior to the purchase of the backhoe.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mayor Coughlin advised that all major expenditures were subject to Council approval.
Mr. Jahnke stated many people believe there is a “Cadillac” mentality at the City in terms of
buying the best. He indicated that when he had inquired, he was told that when you buy the best,
you get better equipment that last longer, however, to his knowledge, there was not a contractor
in the State of Minnesota that purchases Caterpillar rubber tire backhoes because they are so
expensive. He explained that they probably come close in cost to other backhoes, however, the
maintenance and parts are extremely expensive. He stated most contractors purchase Kumatsu
equipment at half the price.
Mayor Coughlin stated that as a contractor himself, he would not agree with the broad statement
that no contractors in the State are buying Caterpillar backhoes or other equipment, because if
they were not, Caterpillar and its subsidiaries certainly would not be located in Minnesota. He
explained that if there were no business in the State, they would not be located here.
Mayor Coughlin indicated that as a contractor, he was also fully aware that sometimes, especially
with its purchase power through the State and other governmental agencies, the City is able to
purchase items at a substantially reduced cost than a private contractor. He advised that Mounds
View also has a very good repair agreement with Caterpillar, whereby the City pays a specific set
rate for any downtime, and Caterpillar pays for the remainder. He explained this backhoe might
be referred to as the “Cadillac” version, however, when you purchase discount equipment, you
would have discount warranty work on it as well, and in his recollection, the City has already
saved a substantial amount of money through the repair contract they have with Caterpillar.
Mayor Coughlin stated that as a contractor, he has purchased both discount equipment, and
higher end equipment. He indicated the labor saved in the long run, with a quality product and a
quality company with a name they wish to stand by, may be an intangible at some level, however,
is certainly a benefit to the City. He stated he did not see this as an excessive expenditure of
taxpayer dollars by the City.
Mr. Jahnke inquired if the City pays for the maintenance agreement.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated that if he was in anyway offensive to Mr. Jahnke earlier that
date, he apologized, however, he had many things to do at that time, and did not see that this as
an appropriate time or place to discuss this issue. He indicated the backhoe in question was
purchased on a competitive bid in a joint cooperation with the city of Maplewood. He stated the
city of Maplewood and the City of Mounds View both had a trade in, and he did not remember
the exact dollar amount of the trade in, however, part of the package was the guaranteed
maintenance, breakdown, and buyback of the backhoe. He explained that at the end of five
years, Zeigler Corporation, which handles the Caterpillar dealership in the area, would guarantee
the City $45,000 for the repurchase of the machine. He noted that this price was the low end,
and Ziegler would obviously have to come up with the competitive market price for the machine,
with the hours of usage it has accumulated.
Interim Administrator Ulrich advised that the City also had a guaranteed breakdown of $2,000.
He explained that for any major component of the machine that requires replacement because it
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 7
has broken down as a result of a manufacturer defect, or any combination of any parts of the
machine, the City would only be liable for $2,000 worth of the cost of that repair in that five-year
period, and the remainder would be paid by Zeigler.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the guaranteed maintenance includes the costs for changing
oil, greasing the machine, and preventative maintenance. He indicated the requirements for
greasing the machine are based upon a specific number of hours of usage, and through the
competitive purchasing agreement and the written specifications, the Caterpillar backhoe was
less expensive than other machines. He stated these factors were considered in the interest of
protecting the City from the costs of major breakdowns and major maintenance. He added that if
the City desired to sell the machine back to Zeigler, they were aware of exactly how much the
machine would be worth. He advised that other competitors did not quote as competitively as
Zeigler, and that is why the City chose to purchase the Caterpillar backhoe.
Mr. Jahnke inquired if the maintenance program was similar to an extended warranty agreement,
which must be purchased.
Interim Administrator Ulrich indicated the maintenance of the backhoe is set up by Caterpillar,
which specifies that the machine must undergo certain maintenance procedures within a specific
number of hours of usage. He stated the costs for the anticipated labor and materials over the
course of five years would be the guaranteed maintenance. He advised that the guaranteed
breakdown represents the primary benefit to the City, in that this provides that the City would
only be liable for $2,000 of the expense of any breakdowns related to the hydraulic system,
electrical system or any of the major components of the machine over the course of five years.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if the City has utilized this guarantee.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated yes. He indicated the backhoe that is currently in the shop
belongs to Zeigler Corporation. He stated there has been an ongoing problem with the hydraulic
system on that machine, and Zeigler has corrected it a number of times for a relatively small
amount of hours of usage during any given period. He explained that the hydraulic problem has
been somewhat difficult to isolate, and Ziegler has spent a significant amount of their money
attempting to repair the backhoe. He advised that Ziegler is still in the process of repairing the
machine, and staff has indicated that they desire the machine to be repaired to the City’s
specifications and properly functioning, or replaced. He stated an enormous amount of money
has been saved on this repair, which otherwise, after one year or a specific number of hours,
would have to be paid by the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that the City has already saved $10,000 to
$20,000 on this repair. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct.
Mr. Jahnke pointed out that these problems are not supposed to occur with the best equipment.
Mayor Coughlin advised that anything created by man would be destroyed by nature at some
point. He indicated he did not desire to spend an inordinate amount of time debating the merits
of the backhoe at the Council Meeting, because as he had stated, and Interim Administrator
Ulrich has attested to, this backhoe was less expensive than the others, and it had already saved
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 8
the City money. He explained that if Mr. Jahnke desired further specifics on this matter, staff
could provide this information.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Phil Johnson, was requesting a conditional use
permit for a 400 square-foot shed on his property located at 7474 Groveland Road, to replace a
smaller shed which has grown too small for his needs. He indicated the Planning Commission
reviewed this case at their meeting on May 17th, and in terms of the adverse affects criteria and
the dimensional and zoning requirements for this type of use, felt that this request was in keeping
with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has inspected the subject property, which is a very nice,
well-maintained lot. He explained that the proposed 400 square-foot shed would be located
behind the house and buffered by a number of mature trees, and a privacy fence. He indicated
staff has drafted a resolution for Council action, which would approve the conditional use permit
with four stipulations. He advised that the resolution was required to be recorded with Ramsey
County, the shed could not be used for living space or other uses not allowed in the Zoning
District, the shed would be a permanent structure and designed and maintained to be aesthetically
pleasing and complementary to the house, and no other sheds or accessory buildings would be
allowed on the property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and notices were mailed out to
properties within 350 feet of the subject property. He indicated staff and the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m.
.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5440, a Resolution
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland
Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-005.
Mayor Coughlin stated at the previous City Council meeting, it was the consensus of the Council
to direct staff and the Planning Commission to examine amending the City Code to
accommodate a more realistic view of accessory structures on properties, and that process is
ongoing. He noted that two of the applications on the current Council Agenda were submitted in
April, and he was somewhat sickened that the residents have been required to go through so
much red tape simply to construct a small storage shed in back of their property.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 9
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Kenneth Waste, was requesting a conditional
use permit for an oversized garage at his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive. He stated the
garage would be 1,150 square feet, and would replace a single-stall garage, which is so small the
applicant is unable to park his vehicle in it.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17th
meeting, and after some discussion, recommended approval of this request. He indicated a
resident appeared before the Planning Commission at that time, and indicated his concern that
the oversized garage would lead to some type of commercial activity, business, or auto repair
shop. The applicant indicated he is not a mechanic, and does not intend to utilize the garage for
any commercial purposes, but rather, for parking his vehicles, boat, snowmobiles, and items of
this nature.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted a resolution of approval for Council action at
this time, with stipulations similar to those discussed with the previous case. He indicated the
applicant would be required to record the resolution of approval with Ramsey County, and the
garage could not be utilized for living space or other uses not allowed in the Zoning District. He
stated the proposed garage would be attached to the house, and for this reason, the garage is
required to have a seamless exterior, and match the exterior of the existing house. He indicated
the resolution further stipulates that the existing sheds shall be removed in conjunction with the
garage construction. He explained that there is one shed, which is attached to the existing
garage, and another shed further back on the property, which encroaches into the setback. He
advised that the applicant has indicated these structures would be removed.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of
this conditional use permit.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution No. 5442, a Resolution Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for a 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive;
Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-007.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 10
C. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit for a 1,248 square-foot garage at his property located at 2832 Woodale
Drive. The proposed garage would replace a smaller garage on the property, that is 50 years old,
dilapidated, and in need of repair. The subject property is nearly an acre in size, and there are a
number of mature trees on this large, well-maintained lot.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17th
meeting, and examined the adverse affects, the general conditional use requirements, and the
dimensional and zoning requirements, all of which are met with this proposal. He indicated the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit. He advised that staff
has drafted a resolution for Council action at this time, which would approve the conditional use
permit, with stipulations which indicate that the applicant shall record the resolution with
Ramsey County, the garage shall not be used for living spaces or other uses not allowed in the
Zoning District, and the garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and
complementary to the existing dwelling.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and properties within 350 feet of the
subject property have been notified. He indicated the applicant was present.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5441, a Resolution Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for a 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive;
Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-004.
Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
D. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Storage of Materials at 4749 Old Highway 8, Ace Supply Company.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Bruce Hasselbring, representing ASC Properties, is requesting
a conditional use permit for outdoor storage at their facility located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The
property is zoned I-1, Industrial, and any outdoor storage in an Industrial District requires a
conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting 1,920 square feet of outdoor storage, which
would be 8 feet in height, and enclosed with chain link fencing and slatting that would be
diagonally woven through the chain link. The 60 by 32-foot enclosure would be secured, and
connected to the building.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 11
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17th
meeting, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit. He indicated there was some
concern regarding the materials that would be stored outside, therefore, in their resolution
recommending approval, the Planning Commission stipulated that no chemicals or hazardous
materials, no flammable substances, or materials of this nature would be permitted to be stored
outside, and the enclosure would be securely latched and lockable. He advised that the Planning
Commission also desired it be on record that the Chief of Police be notified regarding this
proposal for safety purposes.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 5453 for Council action, which
approves this request with 8 stipulations, one of which indicates that the applicant shall be
responsible for recording the resolution of approval with Ramsey County. He advised that other
stipulations pertain to the specifications of the enclosure, the requirement that there would be no
storage of hazardous materials, and that the applicant allow for periodic onsite inspection of the
enclosure by appropriate City or county inspectors, to verify compliance with the conditional use
permit.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present. He advised this was a public
hearing, and notification has been sent to properties within 350 feet of the subject property.
Ron Nelson, 2174 Oakwood Drive inquired if there was a potential for hazardous materials to
leak into the ground.
Planning Associate Ericson stated to his knowledge, there are no hazardous materials on the
subject property. He indicated the applicant was not in the business of producing or processing
hazardous materials, and this was a heating and plumbing company, which was proposing to
store PVC piping outside. He stated the concern was not that they would be protecting from the
future spillage and environmental aspects of hazardous materials, but simply to provide a means
to ensure that this would not occur.
Council Member Quick stated the storage of hazardous materials is allowed by permitted use
only, and there has been no request for such a use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was
correct.
There was no further public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5443, a Resolution
Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Fenced, Outdoor Storage Enclosure at 4749
Old Highway 8; Mounds view Planning Case No. CU00-006.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 12
E. 1. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance No. 661, Charter
Amendments to Provide for a City Manager form of Government.
2. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance No. 662, Proposing an
Amendment to the Mounds View Charter by Amending Chapter 2,
Section 2.03 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to Council
Composition and Election in the City.
City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 661 was presented to the Council in draft form at an earlier
meeting. He advised that Section 1 of the ordinance would delete the current Chapter 6 of the
Charter, which refers to the current City Administrator form of government, and insert an entire
new Chapter 6, which is based upon the City Manager powers and duties. He indicated there
were a couple of places in Section 2 of the ordinance, where they would need to refer to the City
Manager form of government, rather than the Mayor and Council plan, and the balance of the
ordinance replaces the term City Clerk Administrator with City Manager, wherever it appears in
the Sections of the Charter.
City Attorney Long advised that the only other substantive changes were set forth in Section
2.09, which designates that the City Manager is in charge of administration, which provides that
Council Members would direct their policy directives through the City Manager, who in turn,
would be responsible for the management of staff. He indicated Section 3 amends Section 7 by
adding new Sections 7.13 and 7.14, which was required in order to provide the City Manager
with official authority over the disbursement of funds and the accounting role. He explained the
City would still have a Finance Officer who would operate under the City Manager, however,
this would clarify that the City Manager has the ultimate responsibility for these duties.
City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 662 proposes a change from the two-year Mayoral term to a
four-year term of office. He indicated the Council requested he research this matter to determine
the term lengths utilized by other cities. He advised that in 1996, the League of Minnesota Cities
conducted a survey of Charter cities, and the survey results indicate that the majority of the
charter cities have established a four-year term of office for Council members, which the City
currently has, and of the 106 charter cities surveyed, 55 have four-year Mayoral terms, 10 have
three-year terms, and 41 have two-year terms. He stated the majority of charter cities in the State
of Minnesota have four-year terms for Mayor, and this provision proposes to make that change.
City Attorney Long advised that procedurally, if the Council approves the First Reading of these
two ordinances at this time, and a Second Reading at their next meeting, under State Statute they
would not be adopting the ordinances to go into the Charter, as was the case with the previous
corrective changes, but rather, the ordinances would go to the Charter Commission for their
review. He indicated the Charter Commission would have a 60-day period in which to examine
the ordinances, and could request additional time for review, if necessary. He explained that if
the Charter Commission were to agree with these ordinances, the Council could, by unanimous
vote, adopt them without going to the ballot, however, if the Charter Commission does not agree,
or suggests changes to the ordinances, the Council would have the option to accept or reject those
changes, and ultimately place the ordinances on the ballot for the next election.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 13
City Attorney Long stated a question had been raised regarding whether or not the Council could
initiate this Charter change by ordinance, and the answer is that they would not be initiating a
Charter change by ordinance in this case, as State Statute requires that if the Council utilizes this
method, they must propose the change to the voters. He advised that they must prepare this
proposal in ordinance form, provide the Charter Commission the opportunity for review, and
then place it on the ballot.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Council would hold the first and second readings of these
ordinances, prior to forwarding them to the Charter Commission for their review.
City Attorney Long advised that State Statue indicates the procedure for proposing Charter
amendments must be done by ordinance, and the Charter states that in order to adopt an
ordinance, there must be two readings, fourteen days apart, and therefore, the procedure was
somewhat unclear. He stated staff believes the best procedure would be to take the matter up at
this time as the first reading, hold the second reading and adoption, and then forward the
ordinances to the Charter Commission for review. He explained that this would not be an
adoption in the true sense of the word, as they would be adopting the ordinances for
consideration by the Charter Commission.
City Attorney Long advised that at that point, if the Charter Commission took no action, did not
agree with the proposal, or suggest revisions, the matter would come back to the Council, which
could, without any further readings or changes, send this language on to the ballot. He stated
staff believes they should treat this process as if they were adopting an ordinance, because the
Statute specifies that Charter amendments must be proposed by ordinance, even though the
ordinance would not go into effect until after the voters approve it.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Charter Commission required the full 150 day review period,
would this mater still be within the time frame to be placed for consideration on the general
election ballot. He indicated he would not desire to spend $5,000 to $7,000 of the taxpayers’
money to hold a special election, if this could be done during the national and general election.
City Attorney Long stated there would be no problem in this regard, if the Charter Commission
takes the initial 60-day period only. He advised that the Charter indicates the last day for filing
for office is September 12, at which time the Charter Commission would have competed their
work, and the ballot could be prepared for print in that time frame. He explained that if the
Charter Commission requested the additional 90-day review period, the question would be
whether or not that review period could be ongoing on the date the ballot must be printed, and
this would have to be resolved. He advised that there is no Attorney General opinion or case law
in Minnesota to draw upon in this regard, and this is currently under examination. He stated the
theory was that if the Charter Commission was to agree with the Council that the language was
acceptable, there would not be the need for a ballot question, and the question would be whether
or not they could still pull it off of the ballot at that point, to avoid a vote on it. He indicated that
if the Charter Commission were to disagree with the Council, the question could still go to the
ballot as proposed.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if there would be sufficient time between the second reading and the
potential 150-day review period to place the matter on the ballot for the general election.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 14
City Attorney Long advised that if the matter involves the 150-day review period, they would be
dealing with the question of whether or not they could overlap in that time frame. He reiterated
there was no clear-cut case law, and having examined the Attorney General’s opinion, there was
nothing to answer this question, and therefore, further examination would be necessary. He
explained that if the Charter Commission completed their work in the 60-day review period,
there would be no issue, however, if the Commission required the additional 90 days, staff would
have to examine this. He pointed out that although the Council did not desire the cost, they could
hold a special election to consider a Charter amendment question, should that become the only
alternative. He stated staff would like to give the Council the option to place the question on the
ballot in November.
Mayor Coughlin stated in an attempt to save money on a special election, the Council might wish
to consider this matter at the next Council Work Session. He stated the timing consideration was
his only concern, and therefore, he would offer for Council consideration that if the timing was
indeed an issue, they consider calling to order at the Work Session for the second reading of the
ordinances, in order to save taxpayer dollars.
City Attorney Long stated the first Council Work Session in June would be held in fourteen days,
and this would meet the requirement.
Mayor Coughlin advised that in keeping with Council rules, a motion and second would be
required prior to discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading
of Ordinance No. 661, an Ordinance Proposing Amendments to the Mounds View Charter by
Amending Various Chapters of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to the Administration
of City Affairs by City Manager in the City.
Council Member Marty inquired if the language of this ordinance was in keeping with State
Statutes.
City Attorney Long stated yes. He indicated State Statutes set up several different means to
make Charter amendments. He advised that one method, which was previously utilized, is that
the Charter Commission initiates the amendment, and the Council, by unanimous vote, approves
those changes to the Charter by ordinance. He explained that in this instance, State Statutes
provide for the City Council to make a proposal directly to the voters by ballot, however, this
must be proposed by ordinance. He stated a third means to amend the Charter is by Citizen
Petition.
Council Member Marty stated he understood this, however, his question was specific to the
language that was amended in Section 2.09.
City Attorney stated there was some discretion with regard to this language. He indicated this
particular Section was standard in charters that have adopted a City Manager form of
government, and this language was similar to that utilized by the city of Albert Lea and other
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 15
charter cities that staff is familiar with, however, the verbiage is subject to the Council’s policy
discussion.
Council Member Marty stated he was somewhat concerned that the Council appeared to be
relinquishing much of its authority. Council Member Quick stated this was correct.
Council Member Marty stated the Mayor and the Council Members would not have the ability to
question anything. Mayor Coughlin advised that the Council could question, however, they
could not dictate. He pointed out that this was somewhat of a standing rule of the Council,
which does not dictate to the City Administrator regarding purchases and items of this nature, but
rather, these matters would go through the process.
City Attorney Long stated this language clarifies what is expected of the City Manager, for
example, the City Manager would conduct the hiring and firing, and the Council would not be
directly involved in that process. He advised that once the City hires a City Manager, the
responsibility for the hiring and firing of City staff would fall upon that individual, and in turn,
the Council would provide direction to the City Manager. He explained that if a problem were to
occur in a specific department, the Council would contact the City Manager to have this
addressed, rather than contacting the Department heads directly. He indicated the language of
this Section creates the official role of the City Manager to conduct the day-to-day management,
however, it does not represent that the Council would be unable to provide direction to the City
Manager with regard to a specific concern. He stated that depending upon the individual’s
perspective, this could be viewed as a loss of power or clarification of the lines of responsibility.
Council Member Quick advised that this form of government was similar to operating a business.
He explained that in a business, there is a Chief Executive Officer who runs the day-to-day
affairs, and a Board of Directors, which provides him with direction.
Council Member Stigney stated the City Attorney had brought forward statistics from 106 charter
cities pertaining to Mayoral terms, and he would like to see similar statistics to determine how
many of the charter cities have the City Manager form of government versus the Clerk
Administrator and other forms of government.
City Attorney Long indicated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed had contacted the League
of Minnesota Cities and performed this research, in order to save legal staff time. He stated staff
could gather further information, if the Council so desired.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consent of the Council to direct staff to obtain further
statistics.
The Council concurred.
Council Member Stigney stated his primary concern with regard to this ordinance was that they
have the cart well ahead of the horse. He explained that the Council was asking to propose this
amendment on the ballot to the voters, however, there still has been no significant discussion or
statistical reason for changing the City’s form of government. He noted some statements have
been made pertaining to streamlining, giving the hiring and firing process more directly to the
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 16
City Manager, and that concerns could be addressed through the City Manager rather than
directly through the Department Heads, however, this is basically the way the City currently
works. He advised that before this is proposed to the voters, they should be informed regarding
what the Council intends to accomplish that would benefit the residents of the City, however, he
seen no firm rationale for this, at this point.
Council Member Stigney stated it was very important to determine what they are attempting to
accomplish, and what problems exist with the current Clerk Administrator form of government.
He added that if there are specific problems, they should determine how to address those
problems, rather than completely changing the form of government that they currently operate
under as the constitution of the City.
Council Member Stigney stated this amendment was proposed to go to the voters under State
Statute, however, he believed that the Council should have the Charter Commission review this
proposal to determine their opinions regarding this form of government, in that they are the
overseers of the City Charter. He indicated the Charter Commission was comprised of 15
individuals who would undertake some discussion and examine the merits and benefits of this
proposal, as opposed to what he has seen at the Council level. He stated that rather than submit
this proposal under Section 410.12 Subd. 5, the State Statute method for placing it on the ballot,
he would suggest the Council submit it to the Charter Commission for their review and
recommendation, and have the Commission report back to the Council with their findings. He
advised that the question could always be placed on the ballot pursuant to Chapter 410.12,
however, to do so at this time would be premature.
Council Member Stigney stated another concern that has not been discussed pertains to the
potential cost to the residents of the City. He explained that each job duty has a bearing upon
how much the City pays an individual, and it has been noted that many of the duties of the
current Clerk Administrator would be passed on to the Assistant City Administrator. He advised
that once those duties are passed on, that pay level would increase, because the City operates
under the system that employees are paid per duties, job description, and so forth. He stated this
would not benefit the voters and the residents, and he believed it be more costly, which could be
considered one detriment.
Council Member Stigney stated there was another issue that could present the significant
potential for detriment to the residents. He explained that currently, the citizens have an
opportunity to review and discuss all of the items that come before the Council, however, with
the proposed form of government, this probably would not occur, as these items would go
through the City Manager, who would be authorized to handle them. He stated he was opposed
this, as it could create the potential for more “backroom dealings,” because the City Manager
would essentially control the City, and whomever was directing that individual might have
similar leanings. He stated he believed that through the process of bringing the information to
the Council and requiring Council action, the issues before the Council are brought forward to
the residents. He advised that one of the things they should be doing is communicating to the
residents.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 17
Council Member Stigney stated he personally believed they were going about this completely
backwards, and therefore, would suggest that the Council postpone action on this item, until such
time as it has been submitted to the Charter Commission for its review and recommendation.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/______. To Postpone Action on this Item, Until Such Time as it
has been Submitted to the Charter Commission for Its Review and Recommendation.
Motion failed.
Mayor Coughlin advised that inherent in this process was up to 150 days for the Charter
Commission to examine this entire issue, and beyond this, the Charter Commission has the
opportunity to come back to the Council with their recommendations at the end of the review
period. He explained that everything Council Member Stigney has requested has already been
spelled out in State Statutes.
Mayor Coughlin advised that the City Council sets the budget for the City, and whether there is a
Clerk Administrator a City Manager, they can only spend within the set budget, and therefore, the
Council maintains control over the purse strings. He indicated the statement that there has been
no discussion and no examples given, was unfair, as examples have been provided, and
discussion has been presented in one form or another. He explained that this was the first
reading of the ordinance, and therefore, he would not go into details at this time, however, he
believed this was a mischaracterization of the debate.
Council Member Thomason moved the question.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated at this time, the Council would move directly to consideration of the
approval of the first reading of the Ordinance 661.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Stigney, Marty) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated City Attorney Long has briefly touched upon Ordinance 662, which was
before the Council for consideration at this time.
Council Member Stigney stated he would move to postpone action on this item for the reasons
previously stated.
Mayor Coughlin advised that it was not in order to call for postponement of an item, prior to a
motion on that item.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of
Ordinance 662, an Ordinance Proposing an Amendment to the Mounds View Charter By
Amending Chapter 2, Section 2.03 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to Council
Composition and Election in the City.
Mayor Coughlin requested a friendly amendment to waive the reading.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 18
The Motioner and Seconder agreed.
Council Member Quick moved the question.
Mayor Coughlin indicated there was an individual on the Floor who wished to speak.
Council Member Quick advised that this motion was in order at any time.
Council Member Stigney stated he has not had the opportunity to speak to this issue.
Mayor Coughlin stated he did not have his copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, however, he did not
believe it was in order to move the question when an individual has the Floor.
City Attorney Long advised that recognition of the order of speakers would be the proper call.
He advised that it was in order to move the question at any time, however, he believed the
Council must acknowledge the speaker, and therefore, the Chair must determine who had the
Floor first.
Mayor Coughlin advised that the Motioner has first right to the Floor.
Council Member Quick stated he would yield the Floor.
Council Member Stigney stated he would like to clarify a point that the Mayor had made
regarding the previously proposed ordinance which was similar to this ordinance in that it was
being submitted under State Statute Chapter 410.12, Subd. 5, and is not required to be. He
explained that this only forces the matter on the Council’s direction of a simple majority vote, to
place something on the ballot without any rationale behind it or any strong analysis of the facts.
Council Member Stigney advised that although the reading was waived, this ordinance proposes
to change the Mayor’s term of office from two to four years. He stated one of the checks and
balances set forth in the City Charter is to specifically restrict the Mayor’s term to two years, and
the reason for this is that it is very difficult to remove someone from office when they are not
doing a good job. He explained that although there was a recall process, it was extremely
difficult to recall an individual in a Mayoral position. He advised that the founders of the Charter
set forth a four-year term for Council Members and a two-year term for Mayor to specifically to
limit the Mayor’s term. He explained that this is because the Mayor has the potential to do more
things for the City, good or bad, and this provision provides the residents the opportunity to
approve the individual for another term after two years, rather than having to wait a four-year
span before a correction can be made.
Council Member Stigney stated this item should be submitted to the Charter Commission to
obtain their opinion and recommendation, and the Charter Commission should submit it back to
the Council. He advised that it should not be submitted to the ballot under State Statute 410.12,
Subd. 5, as the matter could always go to the ballot after the Charter Commission’s review. He
recommended the Council postpone action on this item until the Charter Commission has had the
opportunity to review it, and that the matter not be presented under State Statute 410.12, but
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 19
rather submitted to the Charter Commission as a body appointed to oversee the Charter, so that
they may examine it and bring their recommendation back to the Council. He stated there has
been very limited discussion of this matter, and no analysis on either of these issues.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/________. To Postpone Action on this Item Until the Charter
Commission has had the Opportunity to Review this Matter, and that It Not be Presented Under
State Statute 410.12, but rather, Submitted to the Charter Commission as a Body Appointed to
Oversee the Charter, so that they may Examine It and Bring Their Recommendation Back to the
Council.
Motion failed.
Mayor Coughlin advised that all of the concerns with regard to the Charter Commission review
have been addressed in this Section of the Statute, which requires that the matter be forwarded to
the Charter Commission for consideration, and that the Charter Commission is required to
provide its comments.
Council Member Stigney advised that this proposal does not have to be submitted to the Charter
Commission under State Statutes Section 410.12, Subd. 5, and he believed the City Attorney
could verify this.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would verify this. He indicated the proposal has been submitted in
this manner in order to follow State Statute, and the Motioner and Seconder were in agreement
with that. He stated this item pertains to the position of Mayor, and therefore, he would request
the consent of the Council to abstain.
Council Member Quick requested the Motion be restated.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Motion was to waive the reading and approve the first reading of
Ordinance 662.
Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Long if an abstaining vote would be counted with the vote
of the majority. City Attorney Long stated unless there is a direct conflict, the abstention would
count as a vote in favor.
Council Member Quick indicated he did not believe it was necessary for Mayor Coughlin to
abstain, as he would be required to stand election, regardless of the outcome.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would request the Council’s indulgence in allowing him to abstain.
Council Member Stigney inquired if a vote of abstention would be counted with the vote of the
majority. City Attorney Long stated this was correct.
Council Member Stigney advised that the majority vote would not necessarily be an affirmative
vote. City Attorney Long advised that if there were a direct conflict in Minnesota State Statutes
that would allow for a true abstention, the abstaining vote would not be counted, however, if
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 20
there were no such conflict, the abstention would count as an affirmative vote, for the purpose of
counting the vote.
Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding that the abstaining vote would count
with the majority vote, as opposed to an affirmative vote. He explained that if the majority voted
in opposition to the measure, the abstention would count as an opposing vote.
City Attorney Long stated he did not believe this was correct. He stated the abstention would
count as an affirmative vote. Mayor Coughlin stated in his recollection this was correct,
however, he desired to bring this forward for clarification.
Ayes – 3 Nays -1 (Stigney) Abstain – 1 (Coughlin) Motion carried.
F. Consideration of Hiring Public Works Utility Position.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the Council has been provided a staff report prepared by
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed, which indicates that six applications were submitted
for the Public Works Maintenance position. He stated interviews were conducted by Public
Works Foreman, Tim Pittman, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Steve Dazenski, and Assistant to
the City Administrator Reed, and all three identified the top candidate was identified as Pete
Szurek, and recommended his hiring at Level A, which is $11.05 per hour. He indicated the
position would commence at 85 percent of the maximum level for that position, with quarterly
adjustments based upon performance.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated two other conditions of employment require that the
applicant pass a physical examination and drug screen, and obtain both a Water and Wastewater
certificate within two years of employment.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Staff’s Recommendation to Hire Pete
Szurek for the Public Works Utility Position, Based upon the Terms and Conditions listed in the
Staff Report.
Council Member Marty inquired if this individual would be released from employment if he has
not obtained the Water and Wastewater certificates within this two-year period.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct, as this was a condition of his employment.
He indicated the applicant should have no difficulty acquiring the certificates. He pointed out
that Mr. Szurek has a college education, and has proven to be experienced and knowledgeable
during the past three years of his seasonal employment.
Council Member Stigney inquired if this position was being hired for the Community Center.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated it was not. He indicated this was the Public Works Utility
position.
Council Member Stigney stated he was not aware of this position. Interim Administrator Ulrich
explained that this was the position the Council had authorized for the replacement of former
Wastewater Operator Mortenson.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 21
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
G. Consideration of Resolution 5445, Appointment of Barbara Thomas to Serve
out Remaining Term on Planning Commission.
Mayor Coughlin requested the Council consider the appointment of Barbara Thomas to the
vacated position on the Planning Commission. He presented the Council with Resolution 5445,
which approves the appointment of Ms. Thomas to serve out the remainder of the term, which
expires on December 31, 2001, as stipulated in the resolution.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5445, Appointment of Barbara
Thomas to Serve Out Remaining Term on Planning Commission.
Mayor Coughlin stated copies of Ms. Thomas’ application would be made available to the
Council Members. He indicated Ms. Thomas has lived in the City for more than 30 years, and
has expressed an interest in serving her City in a more active capacity. He stated he would
encourage any individuals who were interested in serving their community to apply for such
positions.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin extended his congratulations to Ms. Thomas, and commended her for her
willingness to serve in this capacity.
11. Next Council Special Work Session: Monday, May 22, 2000 – 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2000 – 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 12, 2000 – 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
June 5, 2000
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
8:48 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, and Stigney.
NOT PRESENT: Thomason.
Mayor Coughlin advised that Council Member Thomason had taken a medical leave. Council
Member Quick stated that all hoped she would be back soon.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, June 6, 2000, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item 10-C, Review and Discussion of City Hall
Custodial Services, Item 10-C-1, Consideration of Resolution 5448, and Item 10-C-2,
Consideration of Resolution 5449.
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item 10-D, Resolution 5450, a resolution granting a
medical leave of absence to Council Member Thomason for the month of June, and Item 10-E,
discussion and appointment to departmental liaison positions, as per the Charter.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Accept the June 5, 2000, Special City Council Agenda as
Amended.
Council Member Stigney stated he had some basic concerns with regard to holding ordinance
readings and adoptions at Work Sessions, in terms of the basic principle of doing so. He
indicated he had specific concerns regarding Item C, and would suggest the Council consider this
matter in a Closed Session.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Stigney was requesting to remove these items from
the Agenda. Council Member Stigney stated he would request the Council not consider Items
10-A and B, Ordinances 661 and 662, at the Work Session, and that if the Council was to
consider Item 10-C, this be done in Closed Session.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 2
Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Stigney was requesting to amend the Motion.
Council Member Stigney stated yes.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/_____. To Amend the Motion to Accept the June 5, 2000 Special
City Council Agenda, as Amended.
Motion failed.
Mayor stated before the Council was a Motion to approve the Agenda as originally amended.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mayor Coughlin stated the meeting minutes would be provided to the Council for consideration
at the next Council Meeting.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin stated a reception would be held for Senator Steve Novak, Representative
Barbara Haake, and City Attorney Bob Long on May 8th, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m., at City Hall.
He indicated that after the presentation and dialogue portion of this reception, which would be
televised, there would be an informal gathering and refreshments would be served. He explained
that this reception was being held to provide the community the opportunity to interact with these
individuals, and thank them for their considerable efforts in protecting the City of Mounds View
with regard to the Airport issue. He stated citizens were welcome to attend, or view the event on
television.
6. REPORTS
Mayor Coughlin reported he attended an I-35W Corridor Buildout Study with other members of
the Coalition, Community Development Directors and other invited guests. He indicated he
would provide a summary of those discussions at the next Council meeting.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Community Development Director Jopke stated the next meeting of the Highway 10 Steering
Committee would be held on Tuesday, June 6th, at 7:00 p.m. He advised that this meeting would
be televised.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 3
Mayor Coughlin stated the Highway 10 safety and redevelopment issues are ongoing. He
extended an invitation to citizens to attend this meeting or view the proceedings on television.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Bill Dody, 3049 Bronson Drive, stated the two ordinances currently before the Council
represented a major issue for the City. He inquired if any individual had come to the City
Council to specifically request the Council consider these matters at a Council Meeting or Work
Session.
Mayor Coughlin stated to his knowledge, this had not occurred in that forum.
Mr. Dody inquired if there were a number of citizens who, under any circumstances, had come to
the Mayor or other Council Members to request the Council consider a City Manager form of
government.
Mayor Coughlin stated yes.
Mr. Dody inquired regarding the specific number of individuals who had made this request.
Mayor Coughlin stated although he would not necessarily place a number on this, however,
several individuals had expressed an interest, much of which stemmed from discussions directly
related to the tragic death of the 13 year-old on Highway 10. Council Member Marty stated this
was his experience as well.
Mr. Dody inquired if these individuals had requested to have a City Manager because of this
tragedy. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct.
Mr. Dody requested the names of these individuals. Mayor Coughlin stated he would not desire
to use their names publicly until he has obtained permission to do so.
Mr. Dody inquired if this was secret. Mayor Coughlin stated no. He pointed out that he must
respect the privacy of these individuals who did not specifically indicate that they would desire to
be discussed publicly.
Mr. Dody inquired if these individuals did not desire their identities to be known. Council
Member Marty stated he had not specifically questioned these individuals in this regard.
Mr. Dody explained that he was simply attempting to obtain some background on this matter, as
it represented a major change for the City. He advised that when the Charter was developed,
many forms of government had come forward, however, no cities the size of Mounds View had
adopted the City Manager form of government, and the City has not changed significantly since
that time. He inquired if there was some urgency that required the Council to pass this ordinance
at this time, without significant community input or demand for this.
Mr. Dody indicated that in the past, one individual had indicated to him that he would consider
changing to the City Manager form of government, and this was former Mayor Duane McCarty.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 4
He inquired if former Mayor McCarty was one of the individuals who had come to Mayor
Coughlin in this regard. Mayor Coughlin stated former Mayor McCarty has indicated a variety
of opinions on a variety of different subjects.
Mr. Dody inquired if he was one of the individuals who had requested the City Manager form of
government. Mayor Coughlin advised that he would not put former Mayor McCarty or any other
resident on public display, as this was not a discussion that would dissolve into the realm of “he
said, she said.”
Mr. Dody stated this was not his objective. He indicated he was attempting to determine whether
or not there was a valid issue in this regard.
Mayor Coughlin stated the ordinances before the Council for consideration would be forwarded
on to the Charter Commission, and then to the citizens of the City. He explained that if the
citizens deem the proposal to be worthy of consideration, they would vote in favor of it, and if
not, they would vote against it. He stated he had full faith in the intelligence and information
gathering ability of the good citizens of Mounds View to make such determinations.
Mr. Dody indicated he did not oppose the citizens’ ability to decide this matter, but rather, was
attempting to determine whether or not there was a large outcry for the City Manager from of
government, which did not appear to be the case.
Mayor C oughlin advised that there are numerous issues that the Council considers as a matter of
course which have absolutely no outcry, however, it is the responsibility of the elected officials,
who are entrusted by the citizens, to determine and pay attention to these types of issues. He
indicated that two or three-dozen individuals he has spoken with have brought this issue forward.
Council Member Quick suggested the time.
Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Dody for his input.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 661, Charter Amendments
to Provide for a City Manager Form of Government.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading, and Approve the Second Reading
and Adoption of Ordinance No. 661, Charter Amendments to Provide for a City Manager Form
of Government.
Mr. Dody requested the Reading of the Ordinance. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council has
already held the Reading.
Mr. Dody stated this was the Second Reading. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 5
Council Member Stigney stated many of the questions he had previously raised remain
unanswered, and he did not feel he could not make a valid decision to support or reject this
proposal, however, his initial feeling would be to reject it, because he sees no advantage in
making a change. He indicated that although he could see no benefit derived for the citizens of
the City, he would be willing to consider this proposal with an open mind, if reasons were
brought forth to support this change to the Charter from the present Clerk Administrator form of
government to a City Manager form of government.
Council Member Stigney stated at the previous Council Meeting, staff was directed to provide a
survey regarding the number of cities which utilize the City Manager form of government, the
populations of those cities, and so forth, however, to date, he has not received this information.
He advised that the amount of discussion on this matter has been very minimal, and he did not
believe this issue has been adequately researched at this point. He indicated his questions have
not been answered with regard to why the City should make a change, what benefit this would
represent to the residents, what problems exist with the present Clerk Administrator position, and
if there are problems, what could be done to correct them. He stated this issue has not been
addressed to his satisfaction.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he had received the survey information from the League of
Minnesota Cities that date. He advised that of the 107 home-ruled charter cities within the State,
there are 73 Mayoral/Council cities, 30 Council/Manager cities, and 4 Strong Mayor Council
cities, the populations of which have been specified in the survey. He stated the Council would
be provided copies of this information for review.
Council Member Stigney stated this information would answer one of his questions, however, he
had also inquired regarding what problems the City experiences with its current from of
government, and if problems exist, how best to resolve them. He explained that these problems
had not been identified at this point, and therefore, he felt very uncomfortable with holding the
Second Reading at this time, at the Work Session, and proceeding with this matter with very
minimal discussion to support the reasons for doing so.
Council Member Quick advised that the fact that the Council would call to order at the Work
Session was announced at the previous meeting, and concerned individuals could have attended
at this time.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Quick, Coughlin.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin advised that Ordinance No. 661 was adopted on a 3 to 1 vote.
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 662, Proposing an
Amendment to the Mounds View Charter by Amending Chapter 2, Section
2.03 of the Charter as to Council Composition and Election in the City.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and
Adoption of Ordinance No. 662, Proposing an Amendment to the Mounds View Charter by
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 6
Amending Chapter 2, Section 2.03 of the Charter as to Council Composition and Election in the
City.
Council Member Stigney stated this ordinance proposes to change the Mayor’s term from two to
four years. He advised that one of the checks and balances set forth in the Charter is that the
Mayor is elected to a two-year term, to provide that if he does not do a good job, he must answer
to the residents within a two-year time-frame, rather than in four years. He stated a Mayor has
the potential to do significant damage in two years, let alone, in four, and therefore, he believed
they should continue to utilize a two-year term of office, as set forth in the Charter.
Council Member Stigney stated if the Council desires to proceed with this proposal, it should be
submitted to the Charter Commission for review. He explained that as the item is proposed, it
would go to the Charter Commission for review, and the Charter Commission could make
recommendations, however, the Council was not required to listen to those recommendations,
but could send the matter to the ballot on a vote of three individuals. He stated this might be a
legally acceptable process, however, he believed it circumvents something, and therefore, he was
opposed to the measure.
Mayor Coughlin stated the citizens have the opportunity at the ballot box to determine whether
they approve or disapprove, and he believes that is where such decisions lie.
Council Member Stigney stated he was also a citizen and would vote on the ballot, however, at
this time, he would be voting as a Council Member as to the direction the Council was taking.
He reiterated that he did not support this measure.
Council Member Marty advised that the Mayor has no special powers in the City or the Charter.
He explained that the Mayor’s vote is just one vote out of five on the Council, and he was simply
another Council Member who presides over the meetings. He indicated the Mayor was required
to attend a significant number of additional meetings, however, he simply presides over the
meetings and has no special powers.
Mayor Coughlin noted there was an exception, in that the Mayor, through consultation with the
Governor, was authorized to declare a state of emergency.
Mayor Coughlin stated although it would probably not specifically pertain to him, he would
request to abstain from the vote on this matter, in that it pertains to the position he presently
holds.
Council Member Stigney stated at the previous meeting, the City Attorney advised that the
Mayor’s abstention would count with the affirmative vote in this situation, therefore, Mayor
Coughlin would essentially be voting in the affirmative.
Mayor Coughlin stated of the options for voting, this was really the only option available to him.
Council Member Stigney stated Mayor Coughlin could vote yes or no.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 7
Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct, however, he would rather register his statement as
abstention, and he would request the Council’s consent in this regard.
Council Member Stigney dissented.
Mayor Coughlin advised that according to Robert’s Rules of Order, there must be unanimous
consent of the body to allow for an abstention for reasons other than a conflict of interest, in
which case, he would be required to abstain.
ROLL CALL: Stigney, Marty, Coughlin, Quick.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated Ordinance No. 662 was adopted on a 3 to 1 vote.
C. Review and Discussion of City Hall Custodial Services.
1. Consideration of Resolution 5448.
2. Consideration of Resolution 5449.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated at a past Council Meeting, staff was given direction to seek
an alternative method of providing for the custodial services for the City Hall building. In doing
so, staff retrieved the July 1999 proposals, and contacted the three contractors who supplied
quotes at that time. Staff has spoken with all three contractors to inquire if they would honor
their bids, as one of the contractors had indicated they would honor that bid until June 1, 2000.
The low bidder, Coverall’s, has agreed to honor their bid, Town and Country and Tower
Cleaning raised their bid, and Jani-King was a new bidder in the process.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated staff was directed to provide for a different means of
cleaning the building, and staff believes this proposal serves the express needs of the building.
He indicated the low bidder was Coverall’s, which bid the City Hall contract at $1,120.00 per
month, and the Community Center, twice a week, at $420 per month. He explained that if the
Council desires to award the bid to Coverall’s, they would abolish the current custodial position,
and be required to provide two weeks notice, as set forth in the Personnel Manual. Staff
recommends that two weeks pay be issued, and those services no longer be retained.
Interim Administrator Ulrich indicated that the Council has authorized the advertisement of a
full-time maintenance position, and in light of this, a letter was sent to the contract employee at
the Community Center, indicating her final day would be June 16th. Staff recommends that 11
days pay be issued to this employee, through June 16th, 2000.
Interim Administrator Ulrich advised that based upon this proposal, the contract service would
represent an additional cost of approximately $1,500 per year.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5448, Recognition of the
Abolition of a Part-time Custodial Contract Position within the City of Mounds View
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 8
Community Center and the Authorization to Create a Full-time Position for the Community
Center Due to a Change in the Needs of the City and the Community Center.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated Resolution 5448 awards the City Hall custodial service to a
contract vendor, and eliminate the position.
Council Member Stigney stated in his understanding, this was the hiring of a full-time
maintenance position at the Community Center, and in addition, a contract position for
weekends.
Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct. He added that both of these salaries
combined would be less than the current salary for seasonal or part-time temporary maintenance
and contractual custodial services.
Council Member Stigney stated however, the overall custodial service costs would increase by
$1,500 per year. He inquired why the City desired a contract, as opposed to the current manner
in which they approach these custodial services. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he believed
this question pertained to the following resolution.
City Attorney Long advised that the intent was to discuss the City Hall custodial service first, and
therefore, the Motioner and Seconder may wish to withdraw their motion, for consideration of
Resolution 5449.
The Motioner and Seconder agreed.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5449, Recognition of the
Abolition of a Part-time Custodial Position within the City of Mounds View and the
Authorization to Contract for Such Services Due to a Change in the City’s Need’s.
Council Member Quick moved the question.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Close Off the Debate.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated before the Council was Resolution 5449.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated before the Council was consideration of Resolution 5448.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5448, Recognition of
the Abolition of a Part-time Custodial Contract Position within the City of Mounds View
Community Center and the Authorization to Create a Full-time Custodial and
Maintenance Position for the Community Center Due to a Change in the Needs of the
City and the Community Center.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 9
Council Member Quick moved the question.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Close Off the Debate.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated at this time, the Council would move directly to consideration of the
Motion to approve Resolution 5448.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
D. Consideration of Resolution 5450, a Resolution Granting a Leave of Absence
to Council Member Thomason.
Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Lynne Thomas has requested an official leave of
absence due to medical reasons. He advised that Resolution 5450 approves this request.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5450, a Resolution Granting a Leave
of Absence to Council Member Thomason.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Discussion and Appointment of Departmental Liaison Positions, as per
Charter.
Mayor Coughlin provided the Council with a memorandum he had prepared, and read as follows:
“Upon further review of the charter, I have found that Section 3.02 of the charter has not been
followed for a number of years. The section in question states:
‘Section 3.02. Liaison Function. Council members shall be assigned as liaison to City
departments. Their assignments shall be rotated periodically and shall involve no administrative
responsibility.’
In order to fulfill the requirement stated in the above-mentioned section, I would recommend the
following assignments:
Rob Marty Community Development
Gary Quick Public Works; Golf Course
Lynne Thomason Finance
Roger Stigney Police
Dan Coughlin Administration
Please keep in mind that only the full council can give direction to staff and so these liaison
positions are simply to be viewed as another opportunity to promote communication between the
council and the City staff.
Mounds View City Council June 5, 2000
Special Meeting Page 10
I would ask that if the above assignments are acceptable, that a motion be made to allow myself
and the administrator to formally enact a resolution setting forth those said assignments for the
remainder of the year 2000.”
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Allow The Mayor and the Administrator to Formally
Enact a Resolution Setting Forth the Assignments as Specified in Mayor Dan Coughlin’s
Memorandum, for the Remainder of the Year 2000.
Council Member Stigney stated he would prefer to serve as liaison to the Finance Department.
Council Member Quick requested a definition of this position. Mayor Coughlin explained that
these positions would function similarly to the liaison positions that have been set up between the
Council and the boards and commissions of the City.
Council Member Quick inquired if he was to act as some form of “watch dog” at the golf course,
or if he was simply to be available for discussion.
Mayor Coughlin stated particular questions or memorandums would be forwarded to the liaison
as a courtesy, however, the liaison would have no official function, and this was primarily for the
purpose of providing a contact person for these departments. He stated with regard to Council
Member Stigney’s request, prior to taking her leave, Council Member Thomason had expressed
an interest in this particular position, in that she has 20 years in mortgage banking. He explained
that he assigned the Finance Department position to Council Member Thomason as a courtesy,
being aware that she would not be present at the meeting.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the term of the positions. Mayor Coughlin stated they
would be rotated periodically, and the definition of this was open to the Council’s discretion. He
explained that there were six months remaining in the year and the current election cycle, and
therefore, the assignments would probably stand for the remainder of the year.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2000 – 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 12, 2000 – 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9.24 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No.7B
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Meeting Date: June 12, 2000
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on
December 31, 2000. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance.
Licenses are noted with a “New” or “Renewal” after the company name. Those licenses defined
as “new” include all applicants that have never been licensed with the City or have not been
licensed within the past two years. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the last half of
1999.
HVAC
Facilitech - New
GENERAL (COMMERCIAL)
G. W. Holm Co. – New
Maertens-Brenny – New
OTHER
Heartland Industries (Shed Installation) – Renewal
ASPHALT
DMJ Corporation – New
SEWER/WATER
First Rate Excavate, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
SJR-180563v1
MU210-14
ORDINANCE NO. 660
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON RELIANT
ENERGY MINNEGASCO NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Special Ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that it is in the
best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide
natural gas and electric services within the City of Mounds View.
a. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 625, a Franchise Agreement between the City and
Reliant Energy Minnegasco (“Minnegasco”), the City has the right to impose a franchise
fee of not more than four (4) percent on Minnegasco in amount and fee designs as set
forth in Section 4.1 of the Minnegasco Franchise.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Minnegasco
under its natural gas Franchise in the amount of four (4.0) percent of Minnegasco’s gross
revenues, as defined in Section 4.1 of the Franchise commencing with Minnegasco’s
____________, 2000 billing month.
Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with
the terms set forth in Section 4.4 of the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
requires each said utility company to add to its effect rates for the utility service on which the
public utility gross earnings fee is imposed, a surcharge to reimburse such utility company for
the cost of the fee.
Subd. 5. Proof of Company Gross Revenues. Minnegasco shall make each payment
when due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct statement of gross revenues for said
quarter. Minnegasco shall permit the City and its designated representative free access to the
company’s records for the purpose of verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this
ordinance will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise Agreement.
SJR-180563v1
MU210-14
Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this
ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Section 4 of the Franchise, the
effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10)
days after the publication and after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted
ordinance upon Minnegasco by certified mail.
Subd. 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31,
2000.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of ______, 2000.
Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this ____ day of _____, 2000.
_____________________________________
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
_____________________________________
Michael Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 5451
Authorizing the establishment of a Park Dedication Fund and transferring in various funds to
initially establish said Fund.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City has received various funds for park land dedication which are presently recorded
and accounted for in the General Fund;
WHEREAS, the City has little land remaining which will be required to pay park land dedication fee to
the City, thereby limiting funds to be received in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with the YMCA to manage its recreation programming and funds
remain in the City’s Recreation Special Revenue Fund.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that City
authorizes the establishment of a Park Dedication Fund, with the interest earned on such fund to be used
for capital improvements to the City’s park and recreation facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds in General Fund Park Dedication Reserve account and in the
Recreation Special Revenue Fund are hereby transferred to the Park Dedication Fund, and the General
Fund Park Dedication Reserve account and Recreation Special Revenue Fund are to be closed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date for this resolution is for the year ending
December 31, 1999.
Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 12th day of June, 2000.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator
1
Item No.10E
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: June 12, 2000
Type of Business: C.B.
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Police Patrol and Sergeants Contract
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Attached to this report, Council will find a summary of the changes agreed upon by both parties.
Council has been appraised of these issues throughout the negotiating process. A copy of the
Patrol contract accompanies this report. At the time of this writing a final copy of the Sergeant’s
contract was not available. The following is a brief report from Chief Clark.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the two contracts.
Contract Negotiations
Patrol/Sergeants
STAFF REPORT
LELS June 7, 2000
The negotiations with the two separate LELS bargaining units within the Police Department have
been concluded. The agreements reached and discussed in prior closed sessions of the Council
are now in written form with signed approval by the Union Members. Copies of the Agreement
for signature are in the hands of the Interim City Manager for the approval of the Council.
Attached are point comparison sheets for those items of monetary value, and the agreement made
to reach conclusion.
The agreements are in and of themselves a milestone for both the City and the Union
Membership. They are the first three-year contracts, and required no arbitration. They were
achieved without malice, morale issues or recrimination by either side. They are inherently fair
and address concerns of both sides. Mr. Whiting, Mr. Ulrich, Ms Reed and the LELS
Representatives all did an excellent job, and Mr. Ulrich is especially deserving of our plaudits for
arriving at the table late, as a substitute, and conducting himself with honor and knowledge.
While the comparison sheet contains those items of monetary nature, there were other items in
the contracts that were word smithed to the benefit of the Department, the City and the Union.
The negotiations brought to the forefront items not addressed or ignored in past contracts and
provided impetuous for solutions. All in all, the negotiations were very satisfying, and have
provided a base for future change and growth through teamwork in the Department.
Final Points of City/LELS Sgts. Contract Negotiations
6/7/00/00
Final Points of City/LELS Police Contract Negotiations
6/7/00
Item City LELS Notes
Overtime (Sgts. will
get flex time instead of
OT as do all other
exempt employees)
agree agree
Wages 3%, 3%, 4% agree
Vacation-1 add’l day if
over 15 yrs of service
agree agree Union will drop this issue
if they get a rider that
says they will get add’l
vacation time if any other
group gets add’l vacation
time for the life of the
contract
Uniforms ($575 in
2000 plus est. of
uniform committee)
agree agree
Insurance (80/20 split
with any increase over
15% being negotiable)
agree agree
Court Duty (3 hrs pay
at 1 ½ time w/
mandatory call-in the
night before
agree agree
Adding disclaimer that
says the union
contract supercedes
all other documents,
past practices and
policies
drop agree
3
Item City LELS
Article 29-Duration 3 yrs agree
Appendix A-Wages 3%-3%-4% agree
Specialty Pay
• FTO-$100/mo while
training
• Investigators: $210,
$225, $235
agree
agree
Vacation no change drop
Union Security no change drop
Holidays no change drop
Uniforms $575 in 2000 and estab. of uniform
committee
agree
Insurance 80/20 split, 15% cap on increase agree
Court Duty (3 hrs pay at 1 ½
times with mandatory call-in the
night before)
agree agree
Severance no change drop
Deferred Comp no change drop
Tuition Reimbursement no change drop
Sick leave Put 22.3e in Art 29, add
“After 90 working days”
agree
Sick leave-proof required no change drop
Severance slight language modification
“accrued and unused”
agree
C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\2000 Police Sergeants Contract.doc
LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (L.E.L.S.)
JANUARY 1, 2000 - DECEMBER 31, 2002
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT .......................................................................1
ARTICLE 2- RECOGNITION ........................................................................................................1
ARTICLE 3 - DEFINITIONS ..........................................................................................................1
ARTICLE 4- EMPLOYER SECURITY..........................................................................................2
ARTICLE 5- EMPLOYER AUTHORITY ......................................................................................2
ARTICLE 6- UNION SECURITY ..................................................................................................2
ARTICLE 7- EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............................................3
ARTICLE 8- SAVINGS CLAUSE ..................................................................................................5
ARTICLE 9- SENIORITY ...............................................................................................................5
ARTICLE 10- DISCIPLINE ............................................................................................................6
ARTICLE 11 - CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION ....................................................................6
ARTICLE 12- WORK SCHEDULES .............................................................................................7
ARTICLE 13 - OVERTIME ............................................................................................................7
ARTICLE 14- COURT DUTY ........................................................................................................7
ARTICLE 15- WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION ..............................................................8
ARTICLE 16- INSURANCE ...........................................................................................................8
ARTICLE 17 - STANDBY PAY .....................................................................................................8
ARTICLE 18-OFF DUTY CALL PAY ...........................................................................................8
ARTICLE 19- UNIFORMS .............................................................................................................8
ARTICLE 20- VACATION .............................................................................................................9
ARTICLE 21- SICK LEAVE ..........................................................................................................9
ARTICLE 22 - SEVERANCE PAY ..............................................................................................10
ARTICLE 23- HOLIDAYS ...........................................................................................................10
ARTICLE 24- CAFETERIA PLAN ..............................................................................................10
ARTICLE 25- INJURY ON DUTY ..............................................................................................11
ARTICLE 26- LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE ...........................................11
ARTICLE 27 - WAIVER ...............................................................................................................12
ARTICLE 28- POST LICENSES .................................................................................................12
ARTICLE 29 - DURATION ..........................................................................................................12
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................14
1
MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
L.E.L.S.
ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is entered into as of May , 2000 between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
(L.E.L.S.), LOCAL NO. 204 , hereinafter called the UNION.
It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to:
1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT’S
interpretation and/or application; and
1.2 Place in written form the parties’ agreement upon terms and conditions of employment
for the duration of this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE 2- RECOGNITION
2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 179A.03, Subdivision 14, for all police personnel in the
following job classification:
Police Patrol Person
Investigator
2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or
exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of
Mediation Services for determination.
ARTICLE 3 - DEFINITIONS
3.1 UNION: The Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (L.E.L.S.), Local No. 204
3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (L.E.L.S.),
Local No. 204
3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit.
3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Mounds View
3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Mounds View Police Department.
3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (L.E.L.S.)
3.8 INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE: An employee specifically assigned or classified by
the EMPLOYER to the job classification and/or job position of
INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE.
3.9 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess
of the employee’s SCHEDULED SHIFT.
3.10 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a
lunch break.
3.11 REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the
employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties.
3.12 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the
employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties.
3.13 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from
one’s position, the stoppage of work, slow-down, or abstinence in whole or part from the
full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of
inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the
rights, privileges or obligations of employment.
ARTICLE 4- EMPLOYER SECURITY
The UNION agrees the during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause,
encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interruption of or interference
with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER.
ARTICLE 5- EMPLOYER AUTHORITY
5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all
manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and
amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the
organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to
establish work schedules and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically
limited by this AGREEMENT.
5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this
AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify,
establish or eliminate.
3
ARTICLE 6- UNION SECURITY
6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a
deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies
shall be remitted as directed by the UNION.
6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as Steward and an
alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such notice and changes in the
position of Steward and/or alternate.
6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting
UNION notice(s) and announcement(s).
6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all
claims, suits, orders, or judgements brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result
of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article.
ARTICLE 7- EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
7.1 DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCE:
A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application
of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT.
7.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES
The EMPLOYER will recognize Representatives designated by the UNION as the
grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities
established by this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the
name of such UNION representatives and of their successors when so designated as
provided by 6.2 of this AGREEMENT.
7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE
It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of
grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the
employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when
consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and a
UNION representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss of pay
when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal
working hours provided that the employee and the UNION Representative have notified
and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such
absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the
EMPLOYER.
7.4 PROCEDURE
Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1 shall be resolved in conformance with the
following procedure:
Step 1. An employee claiming a violation concerning the
interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-
one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present
such grievance to the employee’s supervisor as designated by the
EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER-designated representative will discuss
and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days
after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2
shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts
on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT,
allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2
within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER-designated
representative’s final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in
writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be
considered waived.
Step 2 If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the
UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 2
Representative. The EMPLOYER-designated Step 2 Representative shall
give the UNION the EMPLOYER’S Step 2 answer in writing within ten
(10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not
resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days
following the EMPLOYER-designated Representatives final Step 2
answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION
within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 3 If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the
UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 3
Representative. The EMPLOYER-designated representative shall give the
UNION the EMPLOYER’S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar
days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in
Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following
the EMPLOYER-designated representative’s final answer to Step 3. Any
grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10)
calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 3a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3 of the grievance
procedure, the parties, by mutual agreement, may submit the matter to
mediation with the Bureau of Mediation Services. Submitting the
grievance to mediation preserves timeliness for Step 4 of the grievance
procedure. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the Union
within ten (10) calendar days of mediation shall be considered waived.
Step 4 A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by
the UNION shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of
5
the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The
selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the “Rules
Governing the Arbitration of Grievances” as established by the Bureau of
Mediation Services.
7.5 ARBITRATOR’S AUTHORITY
A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to,
or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator
shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the
EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall have no authority to make decisions on
any other issue not so submitted.
B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or
inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws,
rules, or regulations having the force and effect of the law. The arbitrator’s
decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of
the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless
the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the
EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator’s
interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the
facts of the grievance presented.
C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator’s services and proceedings shall
be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party
shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If
either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a
record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a
verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally.
7.6 WAIVER
If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered
“waived”. If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or
any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the
EMPLOYER’S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal
thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as
denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit
in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the
UNION in each step.
7.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY
If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3 of the grievance remains
unresolved, and if the grievance involves discipline of an employee who has completed
the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of
Article 7 or to Civil Service. If appealed to Civil Service the grievance is not subject to
the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article 7. The aggrieved employee shall
indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized - Step 4 of Article 7 or Civil Service
- and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice precludes the aggrieved employee
from making a subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article 7.
ARTICLE 8- SAVINGS CLAUSE
This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the
City of Mounds View. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be
contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgement or decree no
appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other
provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision
may be renegotiated at the written request of either party.
ARTICLE 9- SENIORITY
9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee’s length of continuous employment with
the Police Department and posted in an appropriate location. Seniority rosters may be
maintained by the Chief on the basis of time in grade and time within specific
classifications.
9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at
the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period a promoted or
reassigned employee may be replaced in their previous position at the sole discretion of
the EMPLOYER.
9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. Employees shall
be recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an
opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of the employee’s layoff before
any new employee is hired.
9.4 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to transfer, job classification
assignments and promotions when the job-relevant qualifications of employees are equal.
9.5 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18)
months of continuous full-time employment.
ARTICLE 10- DISCIPLINE
10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one
or more of the following forms.
a) oral reprimand;
b) written reprimand;
c) suspension
d) demotion; or
7
e) discharge
10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form.
10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become
part of an employee’s personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the
employee. Employees and the UNION WILL receive a copy of such reprimands and/or
notices.
10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under
the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER.
10.5 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension without pay.
10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action
unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a UNION representative
present at such questioning.
10.7 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the
grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE 11 - CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens of the United States and Minnesota State
Constitutions.
ARTICLE 12- WORK SCHEDULES
12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eight (2,080) hours to be accounted for by
each employee through:
a) hours worked on assigned shifts;
b) holidays;
c) assigned training;
d) authorized leave time.
12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of
time of the assigned shifts.
12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a
minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees.
ARTICLE 13 - OVERTIME
13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1 ½ ) times the employees regular
base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee’s regularly scheduled shift.
Changes of shifts do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article.
13.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable.
13.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under Article 13.2 be considered
as unpaid overtime worked.
13.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours worked shall not
be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked.
13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes.
13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the
EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee for so working.
13.7 Employees may take compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. Compensatory time may
be accumulated up to fifty (50) hours.
ARTICLE 14- COURT DUTY
14.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during the employee's scheduled off-duty
time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half (1 ½ ) times the
employee’s base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for
Court appearance does not qualify the employee for Court time.
14.2 Employees notified by the employer/court to be on court standby status will be
compensated a total of three hours based upon the employee’s normal hourly rate for each
day the employee is to standby for court duty but not called for court. A summons to
court on a standby day will preclude standby pay.
14.3 The three hour court/standby compensation will not be given unless the employee
contacts the court line the evening prior to scheduled appearance between the hours of
1530 and 1630 hours to verify status, and duly reports such on the Court/Standby request.
ARTICLE 15- WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION
Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a
higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule for the higher classification for the
duration of the assignment.
ARTICLE 16- INSURANCE
16.1 Effective May 1, 2000 the Employer shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of
single Hospital/Dental insurance coverage and eighty percent (80%) of the lowest cost
9
family health insurance plan for dependent Hospital/Dental insurance with the employee
being responsible for paying the remaining cost of the selected dependent hospital/dental
insurance.
16.2 If the cost of family health insurance premium increases by more than 15% in any given
year the Employer and the Union agree to negotiate the amount of the increase that
exceeds 15%
ARTICLE 17 - STANDBY PAY
Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be compensated for such standby time
at the rate of 1 hour compensatory time off for each hour on standby.
ARTICLE 18-OFF DUTY CALL PAY
Employees classified or assigned by the Employer as Investigator will receive one hour of
compensatory time off for every off-duty call received between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m.
ARTICLE 19- UNIFORMS
Uniforms: The Employer shall provide a uniform allowance of $575 for calendar year 2000, and
a re-opener with a uniform committee in the calendar year 2001. Employees who have completed
one year of service with the Employer will be eligible to receive the uniform allowance. The
uniform allowance will be prorated for employees who work less than one full year. The
Employer will determine and provide an initial issue of uniforms and equipment to newly hired
officers.
ARTICLE 20- VACATION
20.1 Vacation Pay. If an employee desires vacation pay in advance of vacation, the employee
must give the EMPLOYER at least three weeks notice in writing.
20.2 Carry Over and Waiver of Vacation Leave. Ten days of vacation may be carried over to
the next year, provided that time be used no later than April 30th of the following year.
20.3 Consecutive Vacation Days. If the employee is entitled to two weeks vacation, the
employee must take one week consecutively, if an employee is entitled to three or four
weeks vacation, the employee must take two weeks with five (5) day blocks or greater.
20.4 Vacation Schedule
Vacation will be granted employees according to the following schedule:
1 through 5 years 10
days
After 5 years through 10 years 15 days
After 11 years 16days
After 12 years 17
days
After 13 years 18
days
After 14 years 19
days
After 15 years 20
days
20.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until May 1st of
each calendar year.
20.6 After May 1st vacation shall be awarded on a first come first serve basis. Vacation
requests shall be submitted no more than 30 days in advance. Vacation requests can be
submitted more than 30 days in advance with the specific permission of the Chief.
ARTICLE 21- SICK LEAVE
21.1 Eligibility: Sick Leave with Pay. Any employee who has been continuously employed for
a period of one year or longer may in any calendar year be granted sick leave not to
exceed thirteen (13) working days with full pay. An employee may borrow up to thirty
(30) days of sick leave with the approval of and under conditions set out by the
EMPLOYER. Sick leave is defined to mean the absence of an employee because of
illness, exposure to contagious disease, attendance of such employee on a member of the
employee’s immediate family requiring the care or attendance of such employee, or death
in the immediate family of the employee. The EMPLOYER may in any case require
evidence in the form of a certificate from the employee’s physician for verification of the
reason for any employee’s absence during the time for which sick leave is granted.
21.2 Accrual and Use. Sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of 120 days.
21.3 Proof Required. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay an employee must:
a. Report promptly to the employee’s department head the reason for such absence.
b. Keep the department head informed of the employee’s condition, if
the absence is more than three (3) days duration.
c. Submit a medical certificate for any absence exceeding three (3)
days if required by the EMPLOYER.
d. Penalty. Claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as
11
permitted in this section, may be cause for disciplinary action, including transfer,
suspension, demotion or dismissal.
ARTICLE 22 - SEVERANCE PAY
22.1 Severance pay shall be granted in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of unused sick leave
to employees who have completed ten years of service. Upon death of the employee, the
beneficiary of the employee shall be paid the benefit.
22.2 Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of
severance pay as provided in Section 23.1, to have the employer use sixty five percent
(65%) of the employee’s accumulated and unused sick leave for the retiree’s group
insurance premium for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree’s 65th birthday.
ARTICLE 23- HOLIDAYS
All employees shall receive the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day,
President’s Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day,
Thanksgiving Day, Day After Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Employees assigned to work on
these holidays shall receive an extra one-half hour of pay for any hours worked.
ARTICLE 24- CAFETERIA PLAN
The EMPLOYER will evaluate, and if feasible within federal and state laws and Internal
Revenue Service regulations, implement a Cafeteria Plan benefit program.
ARTICLE 25- INJURY ON DUTY
Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby
rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee’s
regular pay and Worker’s Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety
(90) working days per injury, not charged to the employee’s vacation, sick leave or other
accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period per injury. The
three (3) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee’s sick leave account less
Worker’s Compensation insurance payments. Employees drawing Worker’s Compensation
benefits will not receive supplementary IOD pay or sick leave pay which provides for more after-
tax take-home pay than the employee made while working.
A regular employee who meets the other requirements of this section and who receives worker’s
compensation payments shall be granted accrued sick leave pay in the amount of the difference
between worker’s compensation payments and the employee’s net salary.
ARTICLE 26- LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE
Employees hired after January 1, 1984 shall not be eligible to receive Educational Incentive Pay
under this ARTICLE.
26.1 After four (4) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid
three percent (3%) of the employees base rate or supplementary pay based on educational
credits as outlined in 27.6 of this ARTICLE.
26.2 After eight (8) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid
supplementary pay of five percent (5%) of the employee’s base rate or supplementary pay
based on educational credits as outlined in 27.6 of this ARTICLE.
26.3 After twelve (12) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid
supplementary pay of seven percent (7%) of the employee’s base rate or supplementary
pay based on educational credits as outlined in 27.6 of this ARTICLE.
26.4 After sixteen (16) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid
supplementary pay of nine percent (9%) of the employee’s base rate or supplementary pay
based on educational credits as outlined in 27.6 of this ARTICLE.
26.5 Employees may choose supplementary pay either for length of service or for educational
credits no more often than once every twelve (12) months.
26.6 Supplementary pay based on educational credits will be paid to employees after twelve
(12) months of continuous employment at the rate of:
Education Credits stated in Percent
Terms of College Quarter Credits Increm
45-89 3%
90-134 5%
135 - 179 7%
180 or more 9%
Not all courses are to be eligible for credit. Courses receiving qualifying credits must be
job related. (Thus, a 4 year degree is not automatically 90 credits). Job related courses
plus those formally required to enter such courses shall be counted. If Principles of
Psychology (8 credits) is required before taking Psychology of Police Work (3 credits),
completion of these courses would yield a total of 11 qualifying credits. C.E.U.’s
(Continuing Education Units) in job-related seminars, short courses, institutes, etc. shall
also be counted.
The EMPLOYER shall determine which courses are job related. Disputes are grievable
based on the criteria outlined in the award of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services,
Case No. 78-PN-370-A.
ARTICLE 27 - WAIVER
13
27.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations
regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent consistent with the
provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded.
27.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this
AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and
proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from
bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in
writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The
EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet
and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of this employment referred to
or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment
not specifically referred to or covered by this agreement, even though such terms or
conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of
the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed.
ARTICLE 28- POST LICENSES
The EMPLOYER will pay $90.00 toward the cost of maintaining POST licensure.
ARTICLE 29 - DURATION
This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 2000 and shall remain in full force and
effect until the thirty-first day of December, 2002. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have
executed this AGREEMENT on this day of , 2000.
FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS
VIEW: FOR L.E.L.S
APPENDIX A
15
1. Effective January 1, 2000 employees shall receive an increase of 3% of 1999 base wage.
Wage Rates:
Effective January 1,
2000 2000
3% 2001 -
3% 2002 -
4%
Starting Wage 2,606.45 2,684.64 2,792.03
(65% of Top Patrol Rate)
After 6 months continuous service 2,806.94 2,891.15 3,006.80
(70% of Top Patrol Rate)
After 12 months continuous service 3,207.94 3,304.18 3,436.34
(80% of Top Patrol Rate)
After 24 months continuous service 3,608.93 3,717.20 3,865.89
(90% of Top Patrol Rate)
After 36 months continuous service 4,009.92 4,130.22 4,295.43
(100% of Top Patrol Rate)
Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the following job classification or
position will receive two hundred ten ($210.00)per month for 2000, and two hundred twenty-five
($225.00) per month as of January 1, 2001 and two hundred thirty-five ($235.00)per month as of
January 1, 2002 pro-rated (or prorated for periods of less than one full month) in addition to their
regular wage:
Investigator
Officers so assigned and trained as Field Training Officers, shall receive a stipend of $100.00 per
month during the period when actively assigned a trainee for training (or prorated for periods of
less than one full month), in addition to their regular wage.
LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 16
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
(LELS) Local No. 232
January 1, 1998 2000 - December 31, 1999 2002
17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT ..................................4
ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION ..................................................................4
ARTICLE 4 EMPLOYER SECURITY ....................................................5
ARTICLE 5 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY ................................................5
ARTICLE 6 UNION SECURITY. ...........................................................5
ARTICLE 7 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ......6
ARTICLE 8 SAVINGS CLAUSE ............................................................9
ARTICLE 9 SENIORITY .........................................................................9
ARTICLE 10 DISCIPLINE ........................................................................9
ARTICLE 11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION ...............................10
ARTICLE 12 WORK SCHEDULES .......................................................10
ARTICLE 13 COURT DUTY ..................................................................10
ARTICLE 14 WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION ........................11
ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE .....................................................................11
ARTICLE 16 STANDBY PAY ................................................................12
ARTICLE 17 UNIFORMS .......................................................................12
ARTICLE 18 VACATION .......................................................................12
ARTICLE 19 SICK LEAVE ....................................................................13
ARTICLE 20 SEVERANCE PAY ...........................................................14
ARTICLE 21 HOLIDAYS .......................................................................14
ARTICLE 22 INJURY ON DUTY...........................................................14
ARTICLE 23 CAFETERIA PLAN ..........................................................14
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 18
ARTICLE 24 WAIVER ............................................................................15
ARTICLE 25 DURATION ...................................................................................15
APPENDIX A WAGES .........................................................................................16
19
ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 1998 2000 between the CITY OF MOUNDS
VIEW, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
SERVICES, INC. (LELS), LOCAL NO. 232, hereinafter called the UNION.
It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to:
1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT∗S
interpretation and/or application; and
1.2 Place in written form the parties∗ agreement upon terms and conditions of employment
for the duration of this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION
2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 179A.03, Subdivision 14, for all police personnel in the
following job classification:
Sergeants
2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or
exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of
Mediation Services for determination.
ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS
3.1 UNION: The Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS), Local No. 232.
3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS),
Local No. 232.
3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit.
3.4 DEPARTMENT: The City of Mounds View Police Department.
3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Mounds View.
3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Mounds View Police Department.
3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Law Enforcement Labor Services,
Inc. (LELS).
3.8 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER
in excess of the employee∗s SCHEDULED SHIFT.
3.9 SCHEDULED A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 20
SHIFT:
3.10 REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the
employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned
duties.
3.11 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the
employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned
duties.
3.12 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence
from one∗s position, the stoppage of work, slow-down, or
abstinence in whole or part from the full, faithful and proper
performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of
inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or
compensation or the rights, privileges or obligations of
employment.
ARTICLE 4 EMPLOYER SECURITY
The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause,
encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interruption of or interference
with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER.
ARTICLE 5 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY
5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all
manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and
amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the
organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to
establish work schedules and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically
limited by this AGREEMENT.
5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this
AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify,
establish or eliminate.
ARTICLE 6 UNION SECURITY.
6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a
deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies
shall be remitted as directed by the UNION.
6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as Steward and an
21
alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such notice and changes in the
position of Steward and/or alternate.
6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting
UNION notice(s) and announcement(s).
6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all
claims, suits, orders, or judgements brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result
of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article.
ARTICLE 7 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
7.1 Definition of Grievance
A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application
of the specific terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT.
7.2 Union Representatives
The EMPLOYER will recognize Representatives designated by the UNION as the
grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities
established by the Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the
name of such UNION representatives and of their successors when so designated as
provided by 6.2 of this AGREEMENT.
7.3 Processing of a Grievance
It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of
grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the
employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when
consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and a
UNION representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss of pay
when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal
working hours provided that the employee and the UNION Representative have notified
and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such
absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the
EMPLOYER.
7.4 Procedure
Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1 shall be resolved in conformance with the
following procedure:
Step 1. An employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of
the AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such
alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the employee∗s
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 22
supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER-
designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1
grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not
resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting
forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the
provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT, allegedly violated, the
remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar
days after the EMPLOYER-designated representative∗s final answer in
Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION
within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed
with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 2 Representative. The
EMPLOYER-designated Step 2 Representative shall give the UNION the
EMPLOYER∗S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days
after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2
may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the
EMPLOYER-designated Representative∗s final Step 2 answer. Any
grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10)
calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed
with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 3 Representative. The
EMPLOYER-designated Representative shall give the UNION the
EMPLOYER∗S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after
receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may
be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the
EMPLOYER-designated Representative∗s final answer to Step 3. Any
grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10)
calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 3.a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3of the grievance procedure, the
parties, by mutual agreement, may submit the matter to mediation with the
Bureau of Mediation Services. Submitting the grievance to mediation
preserves timeliness for Step 4 of the grievance procedure. Any grievance
not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar
days of mediation shall be considered waived.
Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by the UNION shall be
submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public
Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of
an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the “Rules Governing the
Arbitration of Grievances” as established by the Bureau of Mediation
Services.
23
7.5 Arbitrator∗s Authority
A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or
subtract from the terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall
consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the
EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall have no authority to make decisions on
any other issue not so submitted.
B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or
inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws,
rules, or regulations having the force and effect of the law. The arbitrator∗s
decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of
the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless
the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the
EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator∗s
interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the
facts of the grievance presented.
C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator∗s services and proceedings shall be borne
equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be
responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party
desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be
made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of
the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally.
7.6 Waiver
If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered
“waived”. If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or
any agreed extension thereof it shall be considered settled on the basis of the
EMPLOYER∗S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal
thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as
denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit
in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the
UNION in each step.
7.7 Choice of Remedy
If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3 of the grievance remains
unresolved, and if the grievance involves discipline of an employee who has completed
the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of
Article 7 or to Civil Service. If appealed to Civil Service the grievance is not subject to
the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article 7. The aggrieved employee shall
indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized - Step 4 of Article 7 or Civil Service -
and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice precludes the aggrieved employee
from making a subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article 7.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 24
ARTICLE 8 SAVINGS CLAUSE
This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the
City of Mounds View. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be
contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgement or decree no
appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other
provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision
may be renegotiated at the written request of either party.
ARTICLE 9 SENIORITY
9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee∗s length of continuous employment as a
sergeant in the Mounds View Police Department. Seniority rosters may be maintained by
the Chief on the basis of time in grade and time within specific classifications.
9.2 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. Employees shall
be recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an
opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of the employee∗s layoff
before any new employee is hired.
9.2.a. During a probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the
sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period, a promoted or
reassigned employee may be replaced in their previous position at the sole discretion of
the EMPLOYER.
9.3 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to transfer, job classification
assignments and promotions when the job-relevant qualifications of employees are equal.
9.4 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference.
9.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until March 15
of each calendar year.
ARTICLE 10 DISCIPLINE
10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one
or more of the following forms:
a) oral reprimand;
b) written reprimand;
c) suspension;
d) demotion; or
e) discharge
25
10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form.
10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become
part of an employee∗s personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the
employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or
notices.
10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under
the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER.
10.5 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension without pay.
10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action
unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a UNION representative
present at such questioning.
10.7 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the
grievance procedure tinder ARTICLE VII.
ARTICLE 11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens of the United States and Minnesota State
Constitutions.
ARTICLE 12 WORK SCHEDULES
12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty (2,080) hours to be accounted for by
each employee through:
a) hours worked on assigned shifts;
b) holidays;
c) assigned training:
d) authorized leave time
12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of
time of the assigned shifts.
12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a
minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees.
ARTICLE 13 COURT DUTY
13.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during the employee’s scheduled off-
duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half (1 ½) times
the employee’s base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift
for Court appearances does not qualify the employee for Court time.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 26
13.2 Employees notified by the employer/court to be on court standby status will be
compensated a total of three hours based upon the employee’s normal hourly rate for
each day the employee is to standby for court duty but not called for court. A summons to
court on a standby day will preclude standby pay.
13.3 The three hour court/standby compensation will not be given unless the employee
contacts the court line the evening prior to scheduled appearance between the hours of
1530 and 1630 hours to verify status, and duly reports such on the Court/Standby
request.
13.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during the employee∗s scheduled off-
duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at time and one-half (1 ½) times
the employee∗s base pay rate if the majority of the hours worked during the shift fall
between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., otherwise the employee shall receive two hours. An
extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearance does not
qualify the employee for the two (2)/ three (3) hour minimum.
13.2 Employees notified by the employer to be on court standby status will be compensated a
total of two (2) hours (or three hours if majority of hours worked during the shift fall
between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.) based upon the employee∗s normal hourly rate for
each day the employee is to standby for court duty but is not called into court. In
consideration for the daily compensation, the employee shall be available to appear in the
appropriate court, in uniform, to testify with minimum delay when telephonically notified
by the employer. Any employee on court standby duty who cannot be notified by
telephone of the need for a court appearance will not be compensated for that day.
13.3 The two (2)/ three (3) hours compensation for court standby duty will not be given if the
employer has notified the employee of a cancellation of the status no later than 1700
hours on the day preceding the court date. Unless notified to the contrary, standby status
shall continue for a maximum two consecutive days at which time the employee shall
contact the employer by the day following initiation of standby status, who will continue
or cancel standby status, as required. Court standby pay will not be granted on a day when
the employee is compensated for a court appearance.
ARTICLE 14 WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION
Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a
higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule for the higher classification for the
duration of the assignment.
ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE
15.1 Effective May 1, 2000 the Employer shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of
27
single Hospital/Dental insurance coverage and eighty percent (80%) of the lowest cost
family health insurance plan for dependent Hospital/Dental insurance with the employee
being responsible for paying the remaining cost of the selected dependent hospital/dental
insurance.
15.2 If the cost of family health insurance premium increases by more than 15% in any given
year the Employer and the Union agree to negotiate the amount of the increase that
exceeds 15%.
15.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of $340 per month per employee for
employee and dependent group health and life insurance for calendar year 1998 and
maximum of $350 per month per employee for employee and dependent group health and
life insurance for calendar year 1999.
15.2 Additional insurance: The employee may designate a portion of the $340 maximum
provided in 1998 and $350 of the maximum provided in 1999 in Article 16.1 to
supplemental life insurance though City offered plans.
ARTICLE 16 STANDBY PAY
Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be compensated for such standby time
at the rate of 1 hour compensatory time off for each hour on standby.
ARTICLE 17 UNIFORMS
The City shall provide $575 in the year 2000. In addition, a uniform committee shall be created
to study and establish standard issue, standard wear, weapons, leather and costs associated.
Said committee to be comprised of one member of Sergeant’s local, one member of Patrol’s
local, and one member of management. Increases in 2001 and 2002 will be based on a needs
study determined by the committee.
Uniforms: The EMPLOYER shall provide a uniform allowance of $530 for calendar year 1998
and a uniform allowance of $544 for 1999. Employees who have completed one year of service
with the EMPLOYER will be eligible to receive the uniform allowance. The uniform allowance
will be prorated for employees who work less than one full year. The EMPLOYER will
determine and provide an initial issue of uniforms and equipment to newly hired officers.
ARTICLE 18 VACATION
18.1 Vacation Pay: If an employee desires vacation pay in advance of vacation, the employee
must give the EMPLOYER at least three weeks notice in writing.
18.2 Carry Over and Waiver of Vacation Leave: Ten days of vacation may be carried over to
the next year, provided that time be used no later than April 30th of the following year.
18.3 Consecutive Vacation Days: If the employee is entitled to two weeks vacation, the
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 28
employee must take one week consecutively. If an employee is entitled to three or four.
weeks vacation, the employee must take two weeks with five (5) day blocks or greater.
18.4 Vacation Schedule:
Vacation will be granted employees according to the following schedule:
1 through 5 years 10 days
After 5 years through 10 years 15 days
After 11 years 16 days
After 12 years 17 days
After 13 years 18 days
After 14 years 19 days
After 15 years 20 days
18.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until May 1st of
each calendar year.
18.6 After May 1st vacation shall be awarded on a first come first serve basis. Vacation
requests shall be submitted no more than 30 days in advance. Vacation requests can be
submitted more than 30 days in advance with the specific permission of the Chief. In the
event any employee group receives additional vacation leave in excess of leave listed in
18.4 this bargaining unit shall receive the same increase.
ARTICLE 19 SICK LEAVE
19.1 Eligibility: Sick Leave with Pay. Any employee who has been continuously employed for
a period of one year or longer may in any calendar year be granted sick leave not to
exceed thirteen (13) working days with full pay. An employee may borrow up to thirty
(30) days of sick leave with the approval of and under conditions set out by the
EMPLOYER. Sick leave is defined to mean the absence of an employee because of
illness, exposure to contagious disease, attendance of such employee on a member of the
employee∗s immediate family requiring the care or attendance of such employee, or death
in the immediate family of the employee. The EMPLOYER may in any case require
evidence in the form of a certificate from the employee∗s physician for verification of the
reason for any employee∗s absence during the time for which sick leave is granted.
19.2 Accrual and Use. Sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of 120 days.
19.3 Proof Required. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay an employee must:
a. Report promptly to the employee∗s department head the reason for such absence.
b. Keep the department head informed of the employee∗s condition, if the absence is
29
more than three (3) days duration.
c. Submit a medical certificate for any absence exceeding three (3) days if required
by the EMPLOYER.
d. Penalty. Claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as permitted in this
section, may be cause for disciplinary action, including transfer, suspension,
demotion or dismissal.
e. A regular employee who meets the other requirements of this section and who
receives Worker∗s Compensation payments shall be granted accrued sick leave
pay in the amount of the difference between Worker∗s Compensation payments
and the employees net salary.
ARTICLE 20 SEVERANCE PAY
20.1 Severance pay shall be granted in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of unused sick leave
to employees who have completed ten years of service. Upon death of the employee, the
beneficiary of the employee shall be paid the benefit.
20.2 Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of
severance pay as provided in Section 20.1, to have the employer use sixty-five percent
(65%) of the employee∗s accumulated and banked sick leave for the retiree∗s group
insurance premium for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree∗s 65th birthday.
ARTICLE 21 HOLIDAYS
All employees shall receive the following holidays: New Years Dat, Martin Luther King Day,
Presidents Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day,
Thanksgiving Day, Day After Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Employees assigned to work on
these holidays shall receive an extra one-half hour of pay for any hours worked.
ARTICLE 22 INJURY ON DUTY
Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby
rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee∗s
regular pay and Worker∗s Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety
(90) working days per injury, not charged to the employee∗s vacation, sick leave or other
accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period per injury. The
three (3) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee∗s sick leave account less
Worker∗s Compensation insurance payments. Employees drawing Worker∗s Compensation
benefits will not receive supplementary IOD pay or sick leave pay which provides for more after
tax take-home pay than the employee made while working.
ARTICLE 23 CAFETERIA PLAN
The EMPLOYER will evaluate, and if feasible within federal and state laws and Internal
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 30
Revenue Service regulations, implement a Cafeteria Plan benefit program.
ARTICLE 24 WAIVER
24.1 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this
AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and
proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from
bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in
writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The
EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet
and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of this employment referred to
or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment
not specifically referred to or covered in the AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or
condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT,
even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or
contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or
executed.
ARTICLE 25 DURATION
This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1998 2000, and shall remain in full force
and effect until the thirty-first day of December 1999 2002. In witness whereof, the parties hereto
have executed this AGREEMENT on this_______________day of_____________ 1998 2000.
FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR LELS
31
APPENDIX A
WAGES
1. Effective January 1, 1999 2000 (3.00% of 1998 5 step compensation schedule 1999)
Step 1
Starting
Step 2
After 6 months
Step 3
After 12 months
Step 4
After 24 months
Step 5
After 36 months
3,903.29 4,147.24 4,391.19 4,635.00 4,879.11
4,020.39 4,271.66 4,522.93 4,774.05 5,025.48
2. Effective January 1, 1999 2001 (3.00% of 1999 2000 wages)
Step 1
Starting
Step 2
After 6 months
Step 3
After 12 months
Step 4
After 24 months
Step 5
After 36 months
4,141.00 4,399.81 4,658.62 4,917.27 5,176.24
3. Effective January 1, 2002 (4.00% of 2001 wages)
Step 1
Starting
Step 2
After 6 months
Step 3
After 12 months
Step 4
After 24 months
Step 5
After 36 months
4,306.64 4,575.80 4,844.96 5,113.96 5,383.29
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 32
33
Item No. 10F
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: June 12, 2000
Type of Business: C.B.
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Budget Transfers
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Now that the Airport Litigation / Legislation and has come to a close, staff has compiled the
expenses including Consultants for this issue. In consultation with the Finance Director, it has
been determined that an additional $79,614.22 is required above the $15,000.00 budgeted in the
Council’s legal budget. Here is the outline of expense as identified by the invoices and the
Finance Director:
Airport Litigation $13,263.10
9,218.45
Total $22,481.55
Airport Legislation $19,173.34
1,293.75
30,665.58
Consultants 21,000.00
Total $72,132.67
Grand Total $94,614.22
Council legal Budget - $15,000.00
Transfer from Reserves $79,614.22
An additional outstanding invoice remains for the Golf Course Billboard / Lease Project. In
negotiations, Eller Media agreed to pay $5,000.00 of the $20,347.40 bill. Staff requests a transfer
of $20,347.40 from General Fund Reserves for these legal expenses. Upon receiving the permits
and signed leases, Eller will be making additional payments to the City. At that time it can be
determined which department, budget or fund will be charged for the legal expenses related to
this project.
Legal expenses related to the update of the Personnel Policies also required additional hours due
to changes requested by Council during the process. An additional $4,500.00 is the amount
necessary to fulfill the City’s obligation.
In addition, approximately $15,000.00 has been billed for Non Retainer issues over the budgeted
amount thus far this year. Staff would also recommend a transfer of funding to accommodate
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
these expenditures.
The total amount necessary for legal services related to these various issues and projects is
$119,461.22. Staff recommends a transfer from the General Fund Reserves in that amount and a
budget amendment authorized in the appropriate budget lines
.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a budget transfer of $79,614.22 from General
Reserves to City Council budget 100-4100-3030, with an additional $39,847.40 from General
Fund Reserves to Central Services budget account no. 100-4160-3010.
__________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Airport general legal expenses.doc